... and then you upload it to YouTube and everybody laughs about it and the next thing you know, this dude, this kid is acting out childhood fantasies that should have been squashed....

Dads, the second you see your son dropping the limp wrist, you walk over there and crack that wrist. Man up. Give him a good punch. Ok? You are not going to act like that. You were made by God to be a male and you are going to be a male....

Meh, they don't bother me - if you spend any time in theatre or visiting Ogunquit, you're bound to run into the queens - it's the militant "what do you mean you don't celebrate my fabulousness, you hater?!?" types that grind my gears.

I expect Hat will be along now any moment with his air of smug superiority. . .

One gay couple I'm friends with, the one does construction work, the other is an ex-marine. They are open about their gayness but not militant. I like them, they vote conservative. In every way nice guys. Why would I disparage them for being different?

I do disparage the ones that storm into churches mocking and ridiculing people that are different from them.

You treat everyone the same way, either as asshole or saints, but treat 'em the same.

A fair question MadisonMan, but not consistent with a Christian world view. From our perspective, nobody is gay. Gay is activity, it is something people do. Some people are tempted by sinful gay sex, most of the rest of us by sinful straight sex. Sexual sin is sexual sin, the flavor is unimportant, it is the cure that is so important.

That cure is forgiveness through Jesus, something all of us desparately need.

You think this guy is one lone nut and not a representative of the large and influential Christianist community in America that preaches violence and discrimination against gay people?

Yes. As a member, I think, of what you're calling the "Christianist community," I can say with confidence that this man is not representative. I can also say with confidence that you know almost nothing of Christians given that you think it's the norm for them to "[preach] violence and discrimination against gay people."

No. I'm sure there are plenty of other preachers like him. America is a land with a multitude of faiths, from Catholic to Santeria.

and not a representative of the large and influential Christianist community in America

Define that "large and influential" community. Baptists? Seventh-Day Adventists? Mormons? Catholics? Orthodox? Or are you simply lumping anyone of faith under Andi Sullivan's loathsome "Christianist" neologism? Specifics, please. And how are they "influential?" Because they might pressure a politician to favor certain laws? Then every group in America is "influential," by that metric.

Oh, I forgot - one caveat to the preaches violence and discrimination item: the Westboro Baptist Church is neither large nor influential, and insofar as they have any political leanings, Fred Phelps is a registered Democrat.

This is not a Christian perspective. It may be your perspective, and you may share it with many people in your congregation, and it may be canon in your sect. As far as opinions go, it does not comport with any modern understanding of human psychology or neurobiology and has no pragmatic value other than to fuel a smug sense of self-righteousness and stone-casting against people that you don't know and don't understand. In my opinion, as a theological matter, anti-gay attitudes lead to behaviors that are a far greater threat to society and your immortal soul than two people of the same sex loving or banging each other.

Yeah, you guys are right. This guy(he has already retracted his words)is representative of no political or religious demographic at all. Nobody but a few, stray, unrepresentative nutbags advocates violence against gays, none but an anomaly here or there advocates criminalizing gays, and certainly there is no needy to worry about actual violence against gays in America. we've only ever heard of any of that stuff in anti-bullying commercials, our own experiences are scrubbed clean of it.

Verily it is shocking that even one preacher, in all of America, can be found on record endorsing such things.

I wonder what Rev. Wright's take on all this would be? He's my guiding light - if he's good enough for the President, he's good enough for me.

This "preacher" does get one thing right, though - you sure as sh*t don't put it on YouTube. Whether the kid turns out to be straight, gay or whatever, no school child needs that sort of thing on the web. Posting that sort of video is just another form of child abuse.

When you guys get over seeing and act of violence as the worst thing in the world that can happen to someone I'll talk to you. Until then, you're not rational to me. Lots of things are best solved by violence.

The emotional turmoil of discovering my wife's adultery and the divorce that followed was waaaay worse than any ass-kicking I ever got, and I've seen many people, here, defending that from a feminist/gay point-of-view, so who's really cruel here?

This post is just picking on the pagan's enemy again, as far as I'm concerned. Funny how there aren't a lot of posts investigating the downsides of gay and NewAge culture - for them and society.

Oh, wait, I forgot - most of you couldn't spot NewAge if it was a birthmark on your face.

"This 'preacher' does get one thing right, though - you sure as sh*t don't put it on YouTube. Whether the kid turns out to be straight, gay or whatever, no school child needs that sort of thing on the web. Posting that sort of video is just another form of child abuse."

Aww, holdfast. It's awfully cute what you did right there. but praytell, what "sort of thing" do you mean exactly? What "sort of video" is it again?

edutcher, it's not all in the world about "sides," red versus blue only on pay per view.

Here I am only noting that a lot more people than commenters here want to admit, share the preacher's sentiments.

The people "shocked" by the HuffPo link being bandies around, after all, are only a smidgen of the American population. I can think of lots of otherwise seemingly decent people, myself, who would not only wonder what the big deal is about the preacher's comments, but would go so far as to say we are all sissies and part of "the problem," for condemning the poor guy. Honestly, how about you?

"That doesn't make them Christian or conservative. It makes them anti-gay. I have known guys that had never set foot in a church, nor voted, but were violently anti-gay."

Scott M, fair enough. But I think it is disingenuous to deny that there is a significant presence of this sentiment in the religious right.

But FAR more importantly than the question of political affiliation, is the fact that these people and attitudes exist in substantial numbers. This fact is disturbing, and it ought not to be blown off with "ahhh, that's just a nutjob, he don'r represent nobody."

But I think it is disingenuous to deny that there is a significant presence of this sentiment in the religious right.

I was under the impression we were discussing violently anti-gay, not just anti-gay. I'm anti-gay in the sense that I do not have sex with men and don't want to watch men having sex. I'm not going to break people or things over it. Toward that end, there are a lot of men that feel exactly the same way. I doubt you meant to include them in your "significant presence" comment. This also COMPLETELY ignores that the most rampantly anti-gay segment of our population is black and male. To say otherwise is to be in denial.

But FAR more importantly than the question of political affiliation, is the fact that these people and attitudes exist in substantial numbers.

Again, are we talking about violently anti-gay or "it's not my bag, baby" anti-gay (see above).

Obviously I have not sampled every Christian's view on homosexual sin, but my theory is the reason homosexuality gets more attention than other sins the Bible lists (I mean let's be real, the Bible calls our EVERYONE, not just homosexuals), is because it's a sin most Christians can't relate to. Hate? Greed? Envy? Lust outside of marriage? Every Christian has probably experienced those, along with many others. But, many haven't been sexually attracted to someone of the same sex. Thus, in their eyes, because it's a sin they've never struggled with and probably will never struggle with, they view it as somehow worse than every other sin.

It sure would be helpful if those posters who suggest that, to use one of their phrases, "many-many" Christian pastors are suggesting violence against gays, children, or gay children would cite some actual examples. Folks, because you have the general impression that something is happening, like, all the time does not in fact mean it is.

It sure would be helpful if those posters who suggest that, to use one of their phrases, "many-many" Christian pastors are suggesting violence against gays, children or gay children would cite some actual examples.

It sure would be helpful if Christina Hendricks came to my bedroom wearing only a merry widow and a smile, Erika, but that won't happen, either.

You obviously do not because there are an entire range of options aside from violently anti-gay and NMBB anti-gay. There might be angrily anti-gay (totally against it, willing to protest, but not violently). There might be somewant anti-gay annoyed, ie, probably wouldn't associate with or hire/work for someone who's gay.

For someone who claims to be gay, you certainly don't seem to know about being gay. Or dichotomies.

You obviously do not because there are an entire range of options aside from violently anti-gay and NMBB anti-gay. There might be angrily anti-gay (totally against it, willing to protest, but not violently). There might be somewant anti-gay annoyed, ie, probably wouldn't associate with or hire/work for someone who's gay.

Then why did you ask "are we talking about violently anti-gay or "it's not my bag, baby" anti-gay" as if those were the only two options? It could be neither of those things.

There is also a range when it comes to violence, from people who hit their kids for being gay to people who oppose efforts to prevent gay bullying to those who support forced reparative therapy camps for gay kids to those who think that gay people should be excluded from the hate crimes laws that already exist and plenty of other similar things.

It's wrong to lump these wingnuts in with all Christians. Most Christians are good, decent people.

That said, I can say with confidence, having grown up in a 3,000+ member Southern Baptist Church that was a member of the Southern Baptist Convention, that this kind of crap is the norm among Southern Baptist preachers. (Not necessarily among congregants, but certainly among church leaders.)

I constantly heard preachers spew vitriol like this growing up (luckily I had the sense to understand that I wasn't the one with the problem; they were). For them, it's all about how you shouldn't live your life, not how you should, which is a real shame. It drove me away from Christianity. I found my way back, but only through exposure to denominations and Christian communities who focus on the big picture and are not so consistently negative.

In the south, this kind of thing happens with increasing frequency when certain issues are on ballots, as in NC right now. I remember when SC (where I grew up) was debating whether to allow a state lottery. I heard lots of sermons about how bad gambling was around that time. "I'm not telling you how to vote, but gambling will lead you to hell."

Upshot: Southern Baptist preachers often have a hard time differentiating between sermons and stump speeches.

Some replies, admittedly more in rambling style than polished precise argument:

"I was under the impression we were discussing violently anti-gay, not just anti-gay. I'm anti-gay in the sense that I do not have sex with men and don't want to watch men having sex. I'm not going to break people or things over it."

I am not sure what the usefulness of this distinction is to our conversation. I mean, while some might worry about whether or not you are trying to watch men have sex, I think that would be a stark minority of people invested in gay rights.

To appropriate that great rhetorical move by Scalia, we're not talking about broccoli here. Broccoli might not be your "bag," but how much experience do we have with, how many stories have we heard about, people being persecuted, abused, run down, mocked (ok, maybe sometimes mocked), for eating broccoli? The casualness of your "it's not my bag" comment suggests you do not take seriously the very real problem that the preacher's rant reflects. I hope I am misreading you on this point.

I'm of course, on a broader scale, talking specifically about people who believe that homosexuals and homosexual behavior constitute a "problem." Who speak against it, worry over it, want to pass laws against it, etc. This is both historically and at present a huge issue in the United States, and I just don't see how it is possdible to deny the presence of that issue in good faith.

Post the obnoxiously anti-gay elements we all witnesed in high school, we'd like to say that the post Althouse links us to is an anomaly, but my own experience as someone who grew up in a fairly politically moderate part of the South, screams otherwise. And my experience in following the news, listening to people's stories, etc., proves otherwise.

"This also COMPLETELY ignores that the most rampantly anti-gay segment of our population is black and male. To say otherwise is to be in denial."

I didn't ignore the presence of rampant anti-gay sentiment in the black community. Although I do think too much emphasis on this can operate as a way to exonerate whites from the same issue. I do see your point that a lot of blacks who are rampantly anti-gay do not identify with the religious right. But these same people aren't exactly committed to social liberalism either, are they?

All of this is less relevant to me, btw, than the great value of calling out anti-gay rhetoric, condemning for the horrible dehumanizing bile that it definitively is, when we see it. And several posters on these boards do at least seem to be doing that.

And have you ever considered that, now, you can't think straight? Of course not, because "luckily I had the sense to understand that I wasn't the one with the problem" - how convenient!

Keep in mind, I'm an atheist, so I'm not defending the Christians, but they also didn't drive me away. I don't like NewAge, but I also wasn't driven away from it, you get me?

What I'm saying is you're being a reactionary, which has made you as easily manipulatable as any Christian is. The positions I've seen you hold are typical of the NewAge Left, and don't reflect any more thoughtfulness than those people/groups you dislike. Being gay doesn't mean you're any more right than my being black does for me. This preacher could be 100% correct but, if he is, would you be able to recognize it and support him? I doubt it - because you've been driven away from that, right or wrong. And you feel good about It. Because it makes you smarter than those hicks. Sure, you keep telling yourself that, you hear?

Your humanity is so much greater because you can now suck dick or whatever in the peace of your own acceptance - that's how it works, every time. Silly boy.

You know, this "thinking" thing - when you really get into it - it's sure to surprise you,...

I go to a nondenominational, conservative, evangelical church. I'd bet it went 85%+ for McCain in 2008. I have never once heard a sermon encouraging violence or hatred against gay people. The church has active members who are gay and trying to live celibate lives. The only sexual sin I hear warned against semi-regularly is pornography, which is appropriate as it's certainly the most common one. The sins most commonly preached against are not sexual at all but are failures of grace and charity in dealing with one's fellow men.

My church is not uncommon in these ways.

Yes, there is a slice of fundamentalism that's strongly fixated on gay issues, but they could hardly be called influential. And even among them, preaching violence against gay people is a stretch.

As for bullying, we had out and proud gay people at our high school, and there was no bullying problem for them. That was over fifteen years ago and in Arkansas! The people who got bullied were bullied for other things like not having the right clothes or whatever other common things dumb young people generally fixate on.

So yes, this is silly. Some random dude who has a problem with gay people is not news.

Actually, it is. I could give you a list of books that support that completely mainstream Evangelical theology or you could just google the terms and ignore the haters and read it for yourself. Mark Driscoll is on youtube and is pretty mainstream Evangelical on many issues, you could watch him a bit if you wish.

"As far as opinions go, it does not comport with any modern understanding of human psychology or neurobiology"

Actually, the born gay movement is much more political than neurological.

"and has no pragmatic value other than to fuel a smug sense of self-righteousness and stone-casting"

Dude, I cast no stone. I have no right to. You missed the entirety of the point. Scripture says that sex outside of male/female marriage is a sin. I have had sex outside of marriage. I am guilty. So you are confused there bro. Evangelical Christianity holds to the Biblical creed ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. You and me both. The creed eliminated the ability to cast stones. That is a Jesus thing, not casting the first stone, and Evangelicals are big on Jesus.

"In my opinion, as a theological matter, anti-gay attitudes lead to behaviors that are a far greater threat to society and your immortal soul than two people of the same sex loving or banging each other."

I read that. But then, that is YOUR theology, not Biblical theology. So you are not an Evangelical, not a Bible following Christian in that area.

Since I am an Evangelical, I do not consider homosexual behavior as any more a threat to our culture than lying or stealing or adultery or any other sin that human being commit.

Now I completely understand how your experience with judgmental assholes who call themselves Christians has confused the issue, and I am so, so sorry for that. Those types of self-righteous people are the only people that Jesus condemned.

Three of my best friends in high school were gay men. And by "best friends," I mean that we hung out pretty much every single day for hours. Not one time did I witness any one of them being harassed or threatened for being gay. Not. One. Time.

The positions I've seen you hold are typical of the NewAge Left, and don't reflect any more thoughtfulness than those people/groups you dislike. Being gay doesn't mean you're any more right than my being black does for me.

For the record, I'm not a member of the NewAge Left. Being gay may not make me any more right about gay issues than others, but it does give me an insight that other people don't have. I'm sure you can appreciate that. My positions on these issues aren't based on thoughtlessness or some idea that my "humanity" is greater or better than others. They're based on my experiences.

This preacher could be 100% correct but, if he is, would you be able to recognize it and support him? I doubt it - because you've been driven away from that, right or wrong. And you feel good about It. Because it makes you smarter than those hicks. Sure, you keep telling yourself that, you hear?

Actually, I thought (and prayed) long and hard about it at the time, and concluded that I was right and they were wrong. It was not an especially easy situation for me given the circumstances. I was not out, although I knew I was gay, and was living in a place where being gay can get you killed and where most people wouldn't be saddened that much by it because you're going to hell anyway.

I wasn't driven away; I made the choice to leave. (Perhaps that's two ways of looking at the same event, I don't know.) I don't think that makes me better than anyone. I just think, with respect to this particular issue, I am right and they are wrong. You are an atheist, so surely you understand what I mean.

As for your hypothetical, I don't really know how I would react if the preacher turned out to be "100% right." I just don't think that's within the realm of possible outcomes on this issue.

What if science conclusively proves that being gay is genetic? (Probably won't happen, but what if?) Do you think this preacher would be able to to get behind that? Nope. He'd just attack the science.

Please don't presume you have a monopoly on the correct way to "think" about things.

Three of my best friends in high school were gay men. And by "best friends," I mean that we hung out pretty much every single day for hours. Not one time did I witness any one of them being harassed or threatened for being gay. Not. One. Time.

Just out of curiousity, where did you live? And in what decade were you in high school?

Since I am an Evangelical, I do not consider homosexual behavior as any more a threat to our culture than lying or stealing or adultery or any other sin that human being commit.

You may not, but I think a lot of Evangelicals do. At least in the church I grew up in, there was a propensity towards ranking sins, and homosexuality -- not just gay sex, but being gay -- was near the top.

No, I was not in Little Rock. I was in Bentonville, in the northwest corner of the state. Also, Hot Springs. Little Rock would probably have been less gay friendly. Little Rock is less friendly, generally speaking.

"Mark Driscoll is on youtube and is pretty mainstream Evangelical on many issues, you could watch him a bit if you wish."

Sorry, Driscoll is not mainstream. Yes, some of theology is mainstream, but he's made his mark by being a ridiculous bomb-throwing attention seeker, combined with a totalitarian leadership style that bodes very ill for the long term health of Mars Hill Church and its members.

"Three of my best friends in high school were gay men. And by "best friends," I mean that we hung out pretty much every single day for hours. Not one time did I witness any one of them being harassed or threatened for being gay. Not. One. Time."

Oh, this changes everything. Why, I wonder, weren't you consulted before the "It Gets Better" campaign? What we needed were videos of smiling girls from Arkansas saying into the camera, 'I don't know what these people are talking about, I've got gay friends and they've never been harrassed. NOT ONE TIME.'"

I hope you have the capacity to see how insulting your cavalier, pollyana attitude is to people who have experienced the fruits of Mr. Pastor's rhetorical screed.

Or maybe the answer is, we forgot about Arkansas. Arkansas is the oasis. It is the place in America where gays have not, do not face persecution.

Aww, holdfast. It's awfully cute what you did right there. but praytell, what "sort of thing" do you mean exactly? What "sort of video" is it again?

That's an easy one: a video capturing a kid acting in ANY way that could easily be mocked by his or her fellow students. Because, you know what, a little kid running around in drag is odd, and maybe funny, but in school that equals fodder for taunting. Because lots of kids are cruel - they're cruel to kids who are gay, they're cruel to kids who are accused of being gay just because they cant' get get a girlfriend, they're cruel to kids who are skinny and weak, they're cruel to kids who are fat, they're cruel to girls who put out to much, and they're cruel to girls who are "freezes", and they're cruel to pretty much anyone for any reason, and if only to make sure they are dishing out the cruelty instead of receiving it. So what decent parent would want to give the bully ammunition. Are you are parent? Didn't think so.

Maybe the kid's gay, maybe he just went through a phase after seeing a Bax Lurhman movie - who knows? But nobody needs the extra weight of having some stupid video following them around for all of their school days.

In the true spirit of talking pointed jackassery that we have all grown to know and love on these commenter boards. Hey, guess what: Life is not a Fox News story. Nor is it a series of Palin sound bites about "real Virginians." I have never actually used the words "flyover country" and never lived in a major city either, though I did spend some time in Charlotte at one point.

The idea of Arkansas, or anywhere else in America, as a place where gays have no need to fear persecution, could only be earnestly entertained by a moron.

Meanwhile, Freeman writes:

"I'm sure there are gays who are bullied."

To which those who are either gay, or who were thought to be gay and who have been and continue to be bullied and harrassed and attacked and run down--and their loved ones--all in one voice would, if they knew of your generous concession, I am sure offer up a thank you for your generous recognition.

Oh, but wait:

"But I don't believe it's an epidemic. And I don't believe that gays get bullied any more than nerds or poor people or homely people or pretty people or anyone else who is different in some way."

Well, if you don't believe it, then never mind. Like I said, I am absolutely flabbergasted that you were not consulted by the "It Gets Better" people.

I am not so sure that we are yet at the point where "nerds" and "pretty people" are accused of being engaged in mortal sin for being what they are, for going o hell, being of the devil, etc. For being unnatural, disgusting, etc. Not sure they must struggle to the same extent before "coming out" to reveal they like Math or are Pretty. But you might be right.

You're damned right that the poor are persecuted in this country but that is another story, the pursuit of which in this thread is only a study in red herringism.

I mean Christ on a Crumb Heap. Freeman. OF COURSE gay people are not the only people in America who get persecuted. But they are a group whose persecution persists on physical, pyschological, and legal fronts, and persecuting them still enjoys very broad sanction among the sorts of people to whom Althouse's actual post points like a neon arrow.

Cavalier dismissal of real problems because they do not affect you is an ugly thing to engage in. No matter how happy sounding the prose.

I hope you have the capacity to see how insulting your cavalier, pollyana attitude is to people who have experienced the fruits of Mr. Pastor's rhetorical screed.

Oh, you're as bullshit as all those blacks, still claiming to be experiencing racism every single day of their lives. Nobody takes it as the truth anymore - we've all got eyes, and our own life experience, y'know? I've seen crimes against gays - even participated in one in my 20s - but anything to the extent being claimed? Nonsense.

So gays get bullied. Who hasn't? I got bullied at black schools (too intellectual) and white schools (too black, poor) and in the Foster homes (just isolated) and the Navy (because there was opportunity) and it always taught me a valuable lesson - fight back. Then the bullies respect you. This idea you're going to get it from screaming, "Stop!" is laughable.

Welcome to "the land of the free and the home of the brave," tough guy.

Are Christians a bunch of gay haters? No. Is this random guy important? No. Are gay teenagers specially victimized? No, based on a good deal of experience, I do not think that they are.

I was an atheist in high school and told I was going to hell pretty much every day. Big deal. Everybody's got an opinion. I thought all the people telling me that were a bunch of fools, so I had my opinion too.

You observe, Freeman, that "righteous indignation is not an argument." Fair enough, it surely is not. It is clear you yourself stand against anti gay bigotry and are generally well intentioned and decent, and though I could see that I didn't recognize it. I apologize on that account and for my general tone upthread.

Some additional rejoinders. You write:

"Are Christians a bunch of gay haters? No."

I did not say they were. it is possible that, given the topic, this attitude could be inferred from my comment about the religious right, but I never drew the definition brush and started painting such rigid lines as all that. As someone else noted, plenty of anti-gay hatred exists in Islamaland, and outside the religious community entirely, to name a couple examples.

And however many Christian gay haters there are who use the Bible to defend their position, I do not blame the religion for this, seeing as how there are plenty of practicing Christians who have no hatred or even concern about the subject one way or the other.

"Is this random guy important? No." I beg to differ here, strongly. He's not important to you and what you are interested in, perhaps. But seeing as how he is articulating views that many do hold and articulate in the country--views that dehumanize people, in myriad ways, then he is worth talking about by my lights.

It seems to me that you are invested in denying the presence of rabid anti-gay bigotry in the country. Comparing this to the treatment of nerds and beautiful people--and even more truly marginalized folk such as atheists--cannot but seem callous from the point of view of those who are marginalized systemically, but it just seems you cannot or will not see that. We have a history of laws in this country aimed specifically at homosexuals. Some, including our last President of the United States, have not given up on using the law to this end. That in itself is not without significant.

Things have gotten much, much better better, though, on the gay rights front. Some of the things Romney and, for that matter, Obama, have both said about the issue in the last two years would have been unthinkable from such high level assholes ten, fifteen years ago. Who would deny this? Indeed, there is almost universal agreement even on these boards, that the fellow in NC is a garden variety bigot. Except for Crack, of course, who chimes in with the usual "back when men were men" dime store wisdom. Ahhh the softening of the culture, how hard the misunderestimated warriors do take it, eh Crack?

There is almost universal agreement even on these boards, that the fellow in NC is a garden variety bigot. Except for Crack, of course, who chimes in with the usual "back when men were men" dime store wisdom. Ahhh the softening of the culture, how hard the misunderestimated warriors do take it, eh Crack?

Hilarious - you just had to drag me back into it, didn't you? I keep telling you poofs I deal in reality. Do you know what that is? It's that layer of thought, two or three down from wherever the rest of you like to exist, that only gets to make an emergence when shit gets so bad your dumb, and ultimately cowardly, asses are finally speechless.

I ask you, where were all the gay speakers, on 9/11? Cowering, while the men laughed, beat our chests, and planned for blood. That's "back when men were men," my friend. Let any semblance of civil society crumble and your "softening of the culture" will be revealed for the lie it is, and, I guarantee you, few gays will be at the forefront of whatever leadership emerges. This is as it should be, and even you know it, your mockery under these false circumstances be damned.

None of you fool me. I have been to "Hell" and back, several times, and that's why I know gays so well - they live there, insisting they were done wrong, when so few of them will stand up for right it's practically a punch line, delivered with a-wink-and-a-smile, at this point. Like convicted murderers, caught smothered in blood, declaring their innocence. Their own worst enemies.

Hard to take? Please. You're no threat. You are, and have historically always been, an annoyance. I have heard your claims for years now and, despite appearances, you've been losing ground consistently. Obama was supposed to have been the end of conservatism but, instead, we cleaned his clock in 2010 and threaten to do so again this year. Gay "rights" haven't made any major strides. Abortion? Still on the table. Basically, across the board, wherever you look, my creation and adoption of the phrase The Macho Response so many years ago - when that was the last thing anyone seemed to respect - looks prescient. Because it was. Because it is. And because I am.

I deal in reality.

Like that "consensus" we were assured could be found around climate change, what "almost universal agreement" the rest of you think you have is about as relevant to me as ice cream to the sun.

It seems to me that you are invested in denying the presence of rabid anti-gay bigotry in the country. Comparing this to the treatment of nerds and beautiful people--and even more truly marginalized folk such as atheists--cannot but seem callous from the point of view of those who are marginalized systemically, but it just seems you cannot or will not see that.

See, I would argue that you seem invested in the idea that gays are especially horribly treated. It simply has not been my experience that they are. Lots of people have a bad time in school. I'm rejecting the idea that gay people are a special class in this. I also reject the idea that the solution is any different than for any other ill-treated group. (1) Bullying shouldn't be allowed for any reason in school. (2) If you're bullied, you need to stand up for yourself. If that means you pop a guy in the mouth, then pop him in the mouth, and let the whole thing be done.

(I also notice that you keep harping on the inclusion of pretty people in the list of havers of bad times in school and that its inclusion seems to offend you. Clearly you have not witnessed the viciousness and social ostracism that can be wrought by jealous girls. I saw a new girl a year younger than myself utterly shunned by nearly all of her female junior high classmates simply for being too pretty.)

Um, Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Gay marriage is coming to more states each and every year. The world is going to note who the bigots were, standing on the sidelines screaming in hate, just like when school integration came to the south. You're welcome to be one of those people.